This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Main page needs more information about Wombats. Particularly Pre-Raphaelite Wombats. Our coverage in that area doesn't seem as good as it could be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

<laughs> I enjoyed that post, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure some people would disagree with you. Where's he at when you need him...? –  LATICS  talk  17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why all the fuss? Haven't we overlooked the fact that April Fool's Day isn't until tomorrow? Mlh loves avon (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (<--- Gah, even my computer gets it wrong!@)

Wikipedia works on UTC- it's April Fool's Day here. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow... way to kill my sarcasm dude. Thanks. Mlh loves avon (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is hard to define in writing. Try italics, they might just work! ;) --candle•wicke 20:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose... and besides, in the time zones that won't get to April 1 until "our" tomorrow, April Fool's Day isn't celebrated. So it was dry wit.Mlh loves avon (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't remotely relevant. I'd just like to say "nice one". I like the news articles, particularly the shoe one.--81.158.237.86 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a nice day. --candle•wicke 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I must say, I'm very impressed by all this, despite the concerns of those who obviously cannot take a joke. The DYK "that German seamen forced a lesbian to go down during the First World War, and the French did the same during the Second World War?" is, in my humble opinion, the highlight. Great work, guys (and girls), great work. 71.254.9.136 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, now the featured article is meningitis. Talk about mood whiplash! the wub "?!" 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fools' Day is over...so why is DYK still hillarious?! ~AH1^(TCU) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've switched DYK back to serious mode. Raul654 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this April-fools charade has got to stop. This is an encyclopedia, not MAD magazine. No excuses can be made for this blatant vandalism and destruction of what this encyclopedia ought to be all about. How is it any different when someone replaces normal content with obscenities, nonsense, or extremely biased opinions? HUCK2012 E. Novachek (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm. What's the problem? None of it is inaccurate or in breach of policy. In what way does it constitute vandalism? --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it will stop in another eight hours. Till then, celebrate the All Fool's Day spirit and have a good laugh! :-) SBC-YPR (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Three obvious differences are that no obscenities, nonsense, or extremely biased opinions are involved. Algebraist 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, there is no WP:UPTIGHT policy or essay. Ikip (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So is wikipedia going to have a section on the article about itself about its notable April Fools Day hoaxes, like it has for every other website that participates in the "charade"? =P NIRVANA2764 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you might wanna hide under a rock for the next 15 hours or so. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{spring • ahead}} 17:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a collaborative effort. Any collaborative effort that cannot occasionally have a little fun is, almost by definition, a government, which Wikipedia most certainly is not ("Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of other terrible ideas," quoted from WP:NOTSTUPID). 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a quite remarkably weird definition of government. Algebraist 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(To original poster) You wouldn't have happened to have read WP:IAR by any chance, have you? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but trying to claim "having fun" in this case is, well, despicable. In several cases, you're putting up claims that violate WP:BLP, such as the Irish minister tidbit. If you wanted so bad to do this, you should have restricted yourself to past events outside the range of BLP, where this nonsense DEFINITELY is not allowed in any form. Honestly, I think that considering the massive outrage to this shown on this page, even after you guys have been deleting comments, the editors behind this should 1) stop trying to ignore everyone about it, and 2) probably, not be allowed to edit the main page anymore, seeing how badly you've violated BLP, and how unwilling you are to express any kinds of regret about it.128.210.146.26 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I still see no BLP violations and would be extremely shocked if I had. We do indeed take BLP very seriously. But it's hard for us to address BLP violations if you don't tell us where there's a BLP violation. --Dweller (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard, because you deleted my comment earlier. Okay, for example: listing that the Irish minister was seen publically naked, how is that not against BLP? It's not even true - he WASN'T seen publically naked. Satirical art was found which depicted a naked caricature of him. You've gotten tons of complaints about this, as well, from what I saw.

But it looks like the violations were finally removed. I'm still dismayed at many of the attitudes displayed on this page - people ask for serious coverage, and they are laughed at; a few editors, without ever bringing it up for discussion here (or for goodness sakes, having a disclaimer on the front page, ignore all the comments from a far greater amount of editors who criticize the decision. I still ask that the editors who put this page up not work on the main page for quite some time; I have yet to see any of them even admit that they might be wrong.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a disclaimer on the front page. The date was clearly noted on the first line of OTD. This sufficed for many other major sources of "reliable information" on the Internet (and other media channels).

As for arguing that the Irish minister wasn't seen naked when an image of him, naked, was seen... that's at least 80% semantics, and the other 20% can be easily ascribed to your need to relax and laugh at the world for a moment or two. I'm sure we're all sorry you didn't enjoy your first experience with April Fool's Day on Wikipedia, but maybe after a short Wikibreak you'll feel better. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

...both Egypt and the Holy Land were originally settled by Germans?

— Gimmicky, but it worked for me. Sca (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't the images linking to the relevant articles on the main page? When you click it, the picture enlarges instead of going to the particular article. Its better if the images links to the article. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would that be better? Algebraist 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal. Especially since the images are usually in the article anyway... --candle•wicke 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Like candle•wicke said the image is already in the article, users can read the article first then view the picture later. For example users read the headline then view the image then go back and click on the link to read about the whole article. Might as well go to the article, read about it then view the picture. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Pretty simple to do, too. –  LATICS  talk  20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing so far to indicate the possible collapse of Wikipedia as a result... --candle•wicke 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A problem is that this will conflict with what happens when you click on images everywhere else on Wikipedia. Having the main page behave differently from everything else is bound to confuse some new users. Algebraist 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Still no collapse of Wikipedia. Just one new addition for new users to deal with. They'll be pretty confused already. --candle•wicke 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't work, because we need a way to credit the image creators. If you clicked and went to an article, it probably would not be sufficient attribution for the various licenses used in Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Attribution is probably the major issue. See Talk:Main Page/Archive 103#Front page... picture linking for more along these lines. - BanyanTree 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But attribution is only necessary with copyrighted work (which wouldn't be on the main page) and ((cc-by-2.0)) licensing, unless I'm mistaken. –  LATICS  talk  19:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Licenses that require attribution include all Creative Commons-Attribution licenses, images using ((Attribution)), and the GFDL. That's a significant number, if not a majority, of the images used on the Main Page. There are some licenses that would allow redirecting, but you would then have two problems. One, readers would never know when clicking on an image would lead it to an image and when it would lead the image description page, without actually clicking. At least now, regular readers expect consistent behavior. Two, it complicates administration and opens a new avenue for disruptive editing. For example, if somebody turned the image page of a CC-BY or fair use image into a redirect, that seems to me to be a difficult problem to find and fix once it is made. For these reasons I would treat turning image descriptions into redirects as a form of vandalism and would respond with the revert-warn-block cycle. - BanyanTree 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place for April Fools Day pranks and jovialitaies. People bang on so much that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I think it should start acting like one. This is a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.248.15 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. -- Phoenix2 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's only for one day of the year - it acts like an encyclopedia for the remaining 364 days. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if you think this is bad, take a butcher's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it's "jovialities", dear; and I had some here today, thank you very much. I sign my name: Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys have got to be kidding me. Someone complains that the information is acting disgracefully, and you completely ignore her complaint and brush her off. You're disgraceful, and I hope I never have you edit any of the articles I've worked on.128.210.146.26 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 86.18.248.15, Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia 365 days a year. Brittanica never jokes around. Instead of adding things for April Fool's, you should do something productive for Wikipedia. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't publish on a daily basis, so it's not very relevant to this discussion. If you care to look at 'respectable' organisations that publish an April 1 edition (or even just an April edition) you'll find that many of them do run April Fools hoaxes. This year AP reported exchange visits between the presidents of Israel and Syria, the Guardian announced that it was moving entirely to Twitter, The Economist announced it was building an economics-based theme park, and so on and so on. Wikipedia's stories are pretty mild by comparison; you just have to click the link to get the straight story. --GenericBob (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Google? Nobody's claiming that they are unprofessional, now are they? Newscasters have been known to hoax, as have scientists. 12.172.168.176 (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I pray that the majority of these people are being ironic and trying to April Fool us all? Otherwise they need to get a life or at least have a read of humour, wit, irony, sarcasm and fun. Christ, so wikipedia made a funny, the world isn't going to implode! As for "Instead of ... you should do something productive for Wikipedia" ... what, like adding ridiculous comments that are going to get you nowhere to a talk page? Yep, that's productive! Pfffft! Killjoys! --LookingYourBest (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Both complainants are newbies and both, already, have notes from other editors admonishing them for possible vandalism. Sour people who probably won't stay with Wikipedia for very long. Cheers. --Phyllis1753 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Shared IPs, warning dates back to November 2007. The users were looking for objective responses regarding the unusual setup of the Main page on April first, not your prejudices about their behaviour. —SV 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter Phyllis and thats a pretty disgusting attitude towards potential contributors to wikipedia. Its not surprising people turn away if they face this sort of snotty attitude. Shouldn't matter if they are new or having 100, 000s of edits. I am one of our most experienced editors on here and I think its a bad idea mixing humor with the actual encyclopedia even if it is for only a few hours and I have a sense of humor too. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld. Charming (and revealing) name. I'm 56. Experience in life does count. I call them as I have already seen 'em. If I can chase away some of the mindless, hidden agenda, shit smearers then it's for the better for Wikipedia. Let them go to Conservapedia and play their games there. Nor am I inclined to feel abashed by some youngster's emotional blackmail. I've already been there too. I onced worked in psychiatric nursing. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, folks. AFD is over and you can get down off the wall. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For everybody, new editor or not, getting brushed off and called a square for suggesting that the main page of Wikipedia isn't a place for half-truths and deliberate misinterpretations, this is apparently the place to start a serious discussion about it. If we try here, it seems we'll just face more name calling. We have 364 days now to establish consensus and put an end to this silly behaviour. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really something I like to see when I log onto Wikipedia; I'm sure millions of people today will agree. I'm all for a lack of censorship, but I'm not sure that an image so distressing is fair game for the main page. I just hope gangrene doesn't make it to FA. Seegoon (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya. I actually got sick a little when I saw that (thank god it wasn't on the keyboard). Quite awful. §hep^Talk 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Came here to say just this. I have never once complained about content on the main page, not after Bulbasaur or History of erotic depictions or April Fools jokes, but this is crossing the line. Shock images have no reason to be on the main page. ShadowUltra (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a shock image -- the girl pictured there is literally the poster child for meningitis vaccination. Raul654 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

True... 99.184.93.203 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for the love of god, change the image immediately. This is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia's critics will love to point out. Just wait for the Conservapedia folks to point to this as evidence of how immoral and sick Wikipedia is... 63.245.144.68 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's distressing. It's also reality. Hope this image, of the same little girl with prostheses, helps. Kablammo (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were suggesting using that picture on the main page. Assuming you are, it's not a good idea because (a) that picture isn't in the meningitis article, and (b) it's not a good illustration of the topic because she doesn't actually have meningitis in that picture. Raul654 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm making the same point (although obviously not as clearly) as you, and also showing what she looked like after treatment. And if the shocking picture influenced people to look at the article on the disease and the one on the girl, so much the better. Kablammo (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that Wikipedia isn't censored for minors and all that, but the front page at least should be clear of anything particularly disturbing or offensive, in my opinion. You can avoid disgusting things by simply avoiding such articles, but the front page is in your face all the time. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I too think that the main page is not the right place for shocking or disturbing images. The photo of the little girl with meningitis should be removed. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki isn't censored, and you all know that. I'm fine with the image, no matter how shocking or whatever. Would you complain if autofellatio was featured? 70.149.136.2 (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would, and I'm about as against wiki-censorship as it is. As has been constantly mentioned above, the main page /isn't/ part of the encyclopdia, so a bit of restraint isn't a bad thing. I love the April Fools thing, as it helps show we're not all serious business (like WP:ODD for instance). It's not so much appropriate or not, more of...how to put it...it's just asking for trouble. That said, if autofellatio actually managed to get to FA level, I would be the first one to clap. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another vote for removal here. Let's have some consideration for our users, and not plaster disturbing pictures on our front page. Axlrosen (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A disturbing image of a child covered all up in bloody bruises is as disturbing as a man gapping out his anus. I would believe it's still an April Fool's prank. CHANGE IT PLEASE. 200.115.154.74 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats the problem with showing a image of the virus instead of this? At the least, we are not free advertising for that girl and her parents cause. Just put a normal, better quality photo and live with it. Matty (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, we don't have such an image. Or, to be more precise, we don't have one that's usable. At 100 pixels wide, the picture we have would be a meaningless pink blob. Raul654 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the current one is completely fine, but if it does need to be changed, how about this symptoms diagram, which is surprisingly not in the article? Mfield (Oi!) 03:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if i'm not mistaken, isn't the picture in the article showing gangrene? Matty (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The red parts are meningitis rash; the black parts are places where it has progressed to necrosis/gangrene. Raul654 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The text on that pic is illegible when scaled to 100px, and without the next it's just a picture of a naked guy. Algebraist 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never complained about a main page article, either. This is a really unnecessarily graphic image to have automatically pop up on the main page of Wikipedia. A good image if you're ready for it, but not if you're casually surfin' the web. Get some tact, people... I just ate, for cryin' out loud. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 03:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The child was sick, not dead. Graphic? yes. Inappropriate? Not imo. She has an incredible survival story. The point becomes moot soon enough with the next front page article to replace it.--MartinezMD (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This argument is unacceptable. If 90-95% of people are unimpressed by the featuring of this picture, rather than ignore their concerns as irrelevant because they differ from yours, how about give them the benefit of the doubt?203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You all know as well as I do that if I were to get Goatse featured on the main page the image would be removed. There has always been a double standard with main page images and it's gotten to an unacceptable level. This is similar to the time someone tried to get a huge picture of a spider put on the arachnophobia article because it "illustrates the article's subject," when in reality the user was just seeing how far he could toe the line. ShadowUltra (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose removing/replacing the image. As graphic as it is, we're supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, as many have noted earlier in this thread. A serious encyclopedic article on meningitis should be equal to that of a medical paper in terms of comprehensiveness, no? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a slight difference between removing the picture completely and removing it from the main page. Toning the main page picture down might be the loving thing to do for the majority of people who aren't expecting and/or happy to see it. How about a warning that says "some people may find the following pictures on this page disturbing"? How about assuming that other people's feelings are worth something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Because, per WP:NOT (official policy), Wikipedia isn't censored. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So your freedom of speech is more important that others feelings? I'm not denying you have the RIGHT to display disturbing images, I'm saying that maybe you could use your rights to love those with less of a stomach than you, rather than use it to offend people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And what has censorship to do with warning people they may find content distressing? I believe that an encyclopaedia should be true to the subject, but should also be sensitive to the feelings of people. The main page is the first thing people see, and with no warning they are forced to see something they could find incredibly distressing. Please give those people a choice, rather than force your anti-censorship onto them.203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a great illustration. So what if they find it distressing? Maybe it will help get more kids worldwide vaccinated. In any case, it's not an encyclopedia's role to protect you from the real world. (Nor is it an encyclopedia's role to encourage you to make positive changes - that's just a possible side effect.) Get over your squeamishness - encyclopedias should not represent a sanitized version of life. In my view, hiding the truth of something like meningitis is just as bad as outright lying about it. It's a real disease, and that's what it can do. Newsboy85 (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again. I'm N O T saying change the article's page. I'm N O T asking that the feature article of the day be changed. Let people go to the page, make a choice about whether they want to view the image, learn about the dangers, and make good decisions about vaccinating their children. What I A M saying is that the main page is first thing that people see, and that taking away the right of a person to choose whether they see a distressing image is a violation of a persons rights. Your motivations sound grand, but I don't believe that the end justifies the means.203.56.22.126 (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And still nobody has answered my question. Why can't there be an infobox at the top of an article stating that people may find images within the article offensive or distressing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.22.126 (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Cenarium (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles, but it really is stretching it a bit far to have it apply to the Main Page. I'm a fervent supporter of the notcensored policy, but that's because if people choose to go to the autofellatio article, or sex, or syphilis or any others with disturbing images, that's their choice. However, a kid going to the main page to look up flowers and bunny rabbits for school should not be presented with an image of a baby with necrotised arms. For that matter, many adults would not want to be presented with it. Can we at least err on the side of caution given that it's the Main Page we're talking about? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will put what many others have said in my own words. Can this image and article be found in an encyclopedia? Yes. Does said encyclopedia use this image on their cover? No. That's all. --Alex Barrow (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot of fair use images in Wikipedia, and just because we could probably legally put them on the main page, it doesn't mean people think they belong there. The main page has always been different... it's seen by hundreds of thousands of people a day, what's appropriate for an article isn't automatically appropriate for the main page. Personally I don't tend to read health articles because I realize that, this being a serious encyclopedia, there might be medical pictures and very disturbing descriptions of symptoms and procedures that I just don't want to encounter. WP:NOTCENSORED means that content can be put in the article if it's relevant, but it is just talking about articles and I don't think it means we have to be confronted with it on the main page, where people aren't opting in to the content by searching for it. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The page says on this day - "2002 – Operation Defensive Shield: Approximately 200 Palestinians fled advancing Israeli forces into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, starting a month-long standoff." You might wish to mention that they were Fatah militants, as acknowledged in the article it links to: Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Failure to do this appears very POV, since it suggests that 200 were civilians 141.166.227.7 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The article says no such thing. It says 'Dozens of militants, Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Security Forces men fled into the church to fortify, along with forty monks and dozens of other Palestinians who arrived at the site for different reasons.' To call all these people Palestinians is accurate. To call them all militants would grossly misrepresent the article. Algebraist 11:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

the "risque menage" a trois should be a risky menage a trois? it's not proper french either so i would think that.24.132.170.97 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Risque" in the sense of "wink wink, nudge nudge" innuendo... it's effectively an English word borrowed from French, as is "menage a trois," since they don't necessarily carry the literal definitions of the original French words (or maybe they do... my French is very, very poor). 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't forget the accents! Without them, the words have a different meaning ( risque = risk ; risqué (with an acute accent) = hazardous). So, le risque ménage à trois would be used rather by an insurance broker trying to ward you against working disability induced by fights, nervous breakdowns etc...( id. in assurance tous risques) - while a preacher could vigourouly blame that immoral and risqué ménage à trois...Sorry about those accents é, è, ê (...& ë, though this one is very seldom used...) Heartily, a french passing by Arapaima (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Accent marks are only for preposterous, suspender-banging, smelly-cheesy-eating, freedom-hating pinko yoo-raw-pean communist bastards. Decent people are advised to steer well clear of them. 194.100.223.164 (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I knew some people felt threatened by different accents, but this is a whole new level of fear! Don't fear the written word, my friend, knowledge is good (as is cheese). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

that's crazy. --AaThinker (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C is your friend. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Added within 3.5 hours of above comment. It was already being debated – the delay was over the precise wording. --candle•wicke 16:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Albania and Croatia join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

What if we included a link to these two articles: Accession of Croatia to NATO and Accession of Albania to NATO? I don't know how we would fit them in, however. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would be relatively intuitive to use them in place of the Albania and Croatia links. The accession articles for both will obviously have links to the main country articles, and we should really prioritise the accession articles before the country articles, as they are more pertinent. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Should've proposed on WP:ITN/C, not here. --74.14.16.148 (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors actually. --candle•wicke 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Either way would be fine. --74.14.16.148 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear in the headline meningitis article. How can anyone have let that go up? It's awful, and children read this. It's not necessary for the subject. The more appropriate picture is that in the main article. Wikidea 09:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The image was removed from the article about 7 minutes before you posted, apparently due to concern that the picture was visible on the front page. While I don't think it's a great illustration, it's worth noting that the child depicted - Charlotte - survived, and became famous for surviving. I'm not sure I accept the "children read this" argument - partly because Charlotte's story is quite uplifting, partly because Wikipedia isn't censored, and partly because the image is tiny (which is why I don't think it's a great illustration). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of censorship is justified when people are adult and know how to exercise self restraint and decency. Even if the girl had survived, it would not be decent. This wasn't about censorship really though, it's about conscience. Wikidea 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'even if the girl had survived'? She lives to this day. Algebraist 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please can you remove that picture of that poor disfigured child. There is absolutely no need to put that on the front page of your website. If you're trying to be sensationalist then you've succeeded, i hope you're ashamed of yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seem to have gone now - thank you! --Rcclh (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG! That image is terrible! Do we really want that to be the first thing people see when they visit Wikipedia? I know Wikipedia is not censored, but that picture sickens me, and I wasn't expecting it to be there. Can we please have a picture of the organism that causes meningitis (the virus/bacteria/whatever) instead? Densock|Dendodge^{in public} 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's now been removed; and good riddance. Before anyone adds it back just because "Wikipedia is not censored", remember that it's also gone from the article too for some reason, so restoring it just to the main page but not dealing with why it's been removed from the article is pretty much just going for shock value. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It was removed from the article in the apparently mistaken belief that it would simultaneously disappear from the main page. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Striking comment, see clarification below. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The removal of the image from the article appears to have been done because the user contested the relevance of the image, it's disputed on the talk page. I removed the image from the Main page due to the rough consensus above not to include the image. Cenarium (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the clarification. I've struck through my comment, above. The removal from the article seems to be based on an incorrect belief that the photo's subject didn't suffer from meningitis, but this isn't the right forum to address that (and I note that it has already been addressed on the article's talk page). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the image of a bacterium that can cause meningitis. I'm sure no one is going to dispute that said bacterium is irrelevant to meningitis, or complain that the image is too boring. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It provides no useful information or encyclopedic value, at least at that resolution. I'd rather go with no image. Algebraist 12:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the new image, i cant see what its meant to be, it looks like a pink square with dots! atleast bring back the other picture, i dont whant the same thing to happen when wikipedia got black listed for having supossedly child porn in one of its articles this is getting silly.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I never thought we'd have no image for a non-CVG/music/movie FA. Sigh. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ah great now there is no image! this is getting silly, wikipedia is not censored!! It will never be now get over it a put the image back!!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this happens every time some disease FA gets featured. Lung cancer comes to mind. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's something to keep in mind the next time a disease gets FA'd - make sure there's a Main Page-friendly image ready. On the plus-side, I've learned that I'm not as squeamish as I thought ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately im not an admin so i cant add it back, who ever changed the image should change it back!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Censorship is the attempt to keep information out of people's hands. Do you seriously think that I'd argue for the removal of the image because I'm trying to keep people from getting information about meningitis? Or is it more likely that I'm being empathetic to people and trying not to gross them out?

For example, at the Boston Globe's web site, graphic images have a disclaimer, and are blank unless you click to see them (e.g. image #11 here[1]). This is not censoring anything - you can still see the picture - but it lets the user decide whether to view it or not. By putting a graphic image on the front page, you don't give users any choice. (I would vote for a user-decides system like this for both the front page and for the article itself!) Axlrosen (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Illustration is, in my opinion, essential to a comprehensive encyclopedia. I must say I'm rather disappointed that the image was removed, but I seem to be in the minority at this point... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yay, win for egoism over common intellect. If we can't force a perfectly relevant medical image depicting symptoms of an illness off the front page, simply for the fact that a few people dislike gore, what can we do? Nigholith (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's appaling if that image remains removed! It was a brilliant illustration of how dangerous this illness is and the damange it can do. Maybe it would go some way to alerting parents to this fact. But no, just because a few people piss and moan about it being 'graphic' the political correctness police take it down! Amazing! It's the same stupid argument every time something out of the ordinary is on the main page! Frankly, I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing birds and insects on there which I always ignore ... THIS picture made me go look at the main article, I imagine it's done the same for many other people! --LookingYourBest (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the worst thing Juliancolton; you're not in the minority, it's just the fact that all the people who don't mind that image there or acutally find it EDUCATIONAL will simply read the article, add to their knowledge-base and happily go on their way! A few people come on here and kick off and all hell breaks loose! Unbelievable! --LookingYourBest (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the image was fine, but if we can accommodate readers who didn't, then so much the better (I take on board Cenarium's reasons for removing the photo, and Axlrosen's comments re: "censorship"). The photo was of Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman, and her story is fascinating and uplifting, in my view, and I'm tempted to suggest that the Main Page could still benefit from a photo of Charlotte as a survivor. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of when the human eye or something was on the main page a few years ago and there was this terrifying picture of the eye being held open with those tong things.. heh my girlfriend nearly vomited when I showed her the (suprinsingly very high resoltion) image :P — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, for crying out loud. We're not here to tell harrowing stories, we're not here to put a brave face on things, and we're not here to sweeten the truth. We're here to present the facts; and what could be more factual and relevant to non-medically inclined readers than the symptoms of a condition? Nigholith (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We can do all those things. But we can also do them in a way that is kind and sensitive to the reader. BTW, as with most disagreements, egoism is a matter of viewpoint. To me, the egoism here is: "I am not disgusted by this image, so therefore nobody should be." Axlrosen (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So where is this "kind and sensitive"? policy? The main page's featured article is a representation of the article within, and to censor any representation of the article is to censor the article itself. There are bound to be many things on the main page, from time to time, which, whether text or image, will disgust or shock the reader, and they are all representing the encyclopedia's content. To censor the main page is to censor the articles' content, and that is against Wikipedia policy. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Where is the kind and sensitive policy? It's called WP:CIVIL. Lovelac7 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to content. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• To whomever removed that graphic image from the main page, thank you. Lovelac7 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is at least second such discussion I see (first was about cancer showing picture of tumor) - now I don't find such images disgusting, but I know others do, so just out of curiosity - wouldn't it be more sensible to make a decision not to put such images on Main page ? If someone reads article about sex or disiese they expect that there could be such images and can turn off images (my browser at least gives such option), but, if someone comes to Wikipedia to look for some other information there mostly is no way for them to know what's the featured article of the day. You can't just always blindly follow the rules you know 87.110.124.8 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If the baby picture can't be used, then why isn't the pink image being used? Sure it can't be scaled to 100px, but since the item of interest is less than 100px anyway, why not just crop it? That would look fine. Better than no image at all, anywayAPL (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why so much anger here? I submit the following (loose) definitions as they seem, IMO, to apply to TFA selections:

• Censorship: removing, hiding, or suppressing information by making it unavailable or obscure.
• Sensationalism: adding information intended to shock an audience for purposes of drawing their (perhaps morbid) interest, OR being as shocking and offensive as possible to get noticed.

To those whose knee-jerk response is to accuse the picture-removers of committing censorship on this uncensored website... you apparently fail to take into account a few considerations. First, unless the baby's image is removed from the actual article, how can you call it censorship? Decisions may be made for aesthetic reasons without "censoring" anything. Second, aesthetic motives are perfectly acceptable reasons to remove an image from the Main Page, as it is the first part of Wikipedia seen by the general public.

On the other hand, to those whose knee-jerk response is to accuse the picture-supporters of sensationalism... be careful. I don't think anyone's intent was to be shocking and offensive. The first "definition" of sensationalism that I offer might apply... it could be that someone got overzealous in their desire to "hook" people's attention into reading the article... but getting people to read the articles is what the Main Page is all about.

My personal opinion is that, perhaps, the editor who chose the image may have brushed the line dividing "interest-grabbing" from "shock value"... but it is a very fine line at times, and I can't see that such emotionally-charged responses from either side are really justified. Information that was present on WP about meningitis 24 hours ago is still here... no lasting censorship has occurred... and viewers who were bothered by the image no longer have to see it if they don't want to. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope "so much anger" wasn't directed at my post, the indentation makes it look as though you're replying to me. I didn't intend any anger in my post, and have no opinion on whether or not the baby image should be on the front page. I was simply trying to point out an alternative solution that appeared to have been missed. APL (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@APL: Done. howcheng {chat} 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Neat. Thanks. APL (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what is the rationale for not using the baby image? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't expect to see the baby, but I wasn't "disgusted". 216.79.193.59 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First the people who thought that the April 1 articles on the front page were made up (something that two clicks or, for that matter, picking up a newspaper now and then would have disproved) and now this. Wikipedia needs to implement some sort of anti-moron captcha for Talk:Main Page. Something that asks a simple question like "What is 2 + 3?" or "Do problems cease to exist if no-one openly discusses or displays them?" and anyone who answers incorrectly is directed to the Daily Mail message boards instead. --86.156.134.242 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"morons"? Who, with regards to the image matter, are you implying to be the morons here? Let's not devolve into personal attacks. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Those who think that covering up terrifying diseases is the same thing as curing them are morons. I am personally and directly attacking these morons, sans euphemism or courtesy, because they are being morons. I do not consider this to be "devolving". Animals are allowed to think that burying their heads in the sand will protect them from predators, because they have tiny brains. Humans have no such excuse. The sand-buriers are the ones devolving, not we.

Regardless of the context, you have absolutely no right to personally attack people on any basis whatsoever, so please cut this incivil "moron" and "sand-burier" stuff. Anyway, the discussion has been moot for the last 16 hours. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

--86.156.134.242 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Howcheng APL (whoops), forgive my sloppy (lazy) formatting. No, I wasn't responding to your comment; I was mainly responding to anyone who has leveled charges of "sensationalism" or "censorship" at the editors.

Haipa Doragon, the rationale for not using the image is that it is sufficiently emotionally disturbing for a wide portion of our audience that the "interest-grabbing" effect of the image seems to be crossing at least marginally into "shock value," which I don't think Wikipedia as a whole has ever been interested in. The information conveyed by the image is not essential to a basic understanding of the topic or its importance, so why should so many readers' first view of the Main Page be a strongly negative experience? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I happen to know such a child myself, an adopted boy from friends. And I was also disturbed, I don't think such a picture should be on the Main page. It has it's place on the meningitis page itself, to show the possible complications, just like pages about other diseases show pictures. So if you want info on meningitis, you will be fully informed. But the Main page in my view should be slightly more open, welcoming, neutral, ... whatever you want to call it. In addition, if I am well-informed, also medical textbooks nowadays try to avoid head-to-toe pictures of recognisable undressed patients/children with strange diseases or disabilities. Not necessary, and degrading. The fact that the parents of the girl in the picture have made her a show-case is worth another discussion, but would also not justify having her on the main page.80.60.102.202 (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, claims of "it's disgusting", etc., but where is the policy to back it up? Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state nothing about removing content due to any form of shock value. This is encyclopedic content and therefore needs to adhere to all policies, including WP:NOT#CENSORED, therefore makes arguments about shock factor, disgustingness, etc. irrelevant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I say it is disgusting? I am a medical biologist, I am not easy to disgust and I can deal with pictures like that. I just think they have no place on the main page, as opposed to the meningitis page. And as even the medical profession appears to have guidelines on how to deal with pictures like this, I don't see why Wikipedia should be any different.80.60.102.202 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it means approximately the same thing in this context. "disgusting", "disturbing", etc. are all arguments which contradict WP#NOT:CENSORED. This is what Wikipedia does; whether the medical profession censors its images is irrelevant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy is right in WP:NOT#CENSORED: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." We can talk about the exact details of this situation, but clearly this has the intent of, all things being equal, try to be sensitive to people. Don't offend or disgust them if you can help it. It's just the respectful thing to do. Axlrosen (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

More discussion in Commons Talk about using patient pictures, see link80.60.102.202 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So what is the rationale for omitting this image? It is a perfectly illustrative image of the symptoms of meningitis and is far superior to the current one in use, which is just a blurry image of a couple of pink blobs, which is far more ambiguous than the "shock image" alternative, which, as proven by all these talk page comments, actually does its job of informing the reader of the subject matter. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The picture is not a "perfectly illustrative image of the symptoms of meningitis." It actually shows a rather rare complication of meningitis, and is not representative for the disease. In that sense the picture of the bacteria is more representative. 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That sort of quibbling cuts both ways. According to our article, most cases of meningitis are caused by viruses, so the current picture, which shows a bacterium, is not very representative. Algebraist 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And it cuts back again. Why would you show a picture on the main page of a rare complication of bacterial meningitis, while viral meningitis is more common than bacterial meningitis?! Certainly not because it is "perfectly illustrative"? 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if it can be proven by reliable sources that the image depicts rare symptoms of meningitis, then it would be definite undue weight to present it on the main page, where it would likely be assumed as depicting common symptoms. Whether or not this is the case should be discussed on the meningitis talk page, as that is where the sources are as to its reliability. Let's not splinter this into a discussion about which sources are or aren't reliable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the info is in the Lancet article cited as ref. 1 in the article, but that is not freely accessible. In any case this chapter on meningitis in the Merck Manual is completely silent on gangrene as potential complication. 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This chapter of the Merck manual] mentions the syndrome we are talking about, including loss of limbs. Not completely clear to me where the boundaries are between meningitis and the other (?) meningococcal diseases. Is there a doctor in the room? 80.60.102.202 (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Haipa, failing to offend people does not require a rationale. Offending people does. I ask again, why should so many visitors' first view of the Main Page provoke a strongly negative emotional response? The image which was removed does serve a purpose, but it isn't necessary for that image to serve that purpose on the Main Page. This is not censorship we are advocating; it is aesthetics and respect... real concerns regardless of the presence or absence of policy which might apply here. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line. main page gets almost 7 mil views a day. u dont want that many ppl almost throwing up because of a picture that may or may not be considered inappropriate. It DOESNT matter if wikipedia is uncensored or not, no one censored the picture. It was removed because it wasnt necessary to show that image to support the article.Ashishg55 (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering there's since been questions (relevant mainly to undue weight, as it seemingly depicts only the symptoms of a rare form of meningitis) as to whether the image's content is relevant enough to be displayed on the main page, the argument relating to censorship, aesthetics, etc. is largely moot. Anyway, the featured article will change in three hours. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm aware of the arguments above, but I really think the blurry pink dots are not a useful illustration. If for various reasons it has been determined not to use the photo of the baby, then why not use the diagram of the meninges, which is the title picture of the meningitis article. Random89 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you still want to change it for the last few hours... 80.60.102.202 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I say anything is better than blurry pink dots. Selecting an image that conveys absolutely nothing about the topic is much worse than a picture of the disease's true effects, no matter how disturbing some people may consider it. Newsboy85 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the 'pink blurry dots' they seem to represent focused example of what the article is about, the previous image showed someone suffering from a mix of 2 conditions which the layman would have trouble separating. I have no objections to the previous image appearing on the front page or in the article, but I do think this one is better as the headline image. GameKeeper (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's 'focused' in its content, but in the optical sense it's a blur that could be anything. If it was captioned "close-up of skin rash" or "pins on a map plotting meningitis epidemic" or "five red balloons in the sky near sunset", how many people could tell the difference? If we can't find an acceptable good-quality image, better to use no image at all. --GenericBob (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed it was the bacterium without looking at the description, and now I see that is what it is. You suggest it might be confusing but the previous image was more confusing as the person had more conditions than just meningitis, this is an improvement over that I hope you agree. Main page articles are more attractive with images (even if blurry), if nothing else it might encourage a better quality image donation. GameKeeper (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know one of Wikipedia's strengths is sucking people in by tempting them to improve an article, but main-page FAs are supposed to be a showcase of Wikipedia's best work; any major failings should be addressed before it gets to that point. I agree that pictures are generally a very good thing, but I don't think that should be extended to the idea that any picture, however fuzzy and unexciting, is better than no picture. --GenericBob (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

GO CHARLOTTE! P.S. Im a kid, and well, that pic attracted me to the article becuase I wanted to see want the heck was wrong with that baby, and if it survived. and again GO CHARLOTTE!!!!! If you have ANY disagreements, just post on my talk page 24.110.2.116 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC) again P.S. i am user dcollins52, and GO CHARLOTTE, lol24.110.2.116 (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What was number one then?  :) -download | sign! 04:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Without checking, I believe that #1 is perpetually Special:Search. Raul654 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No wonder; I never knew special pages were counted.  :) -download | sign! 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There are now 16 people dead in that shooting. Go here to verify that: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30030756/?GT1=43001. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The site you provided gives "12 to 16" as the number estimated to have been killed; the headline averages at 14. As another point, http://news.bbc.co.uk/ says 12. 79.71.67.202 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Report problems on the main page at WP:ERRORS, please. See instructions at the top of this talk page. --74.14.16.148 (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed as 13. [2] —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Today there was a second (decisive) round of presidential and local elections in the Republic of Macedonia. I suggest that the result goes on the front page in the "In the news" section. There's also a page on the presidential elections here. Is this the right place to discuss the news? Crnorizec (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to nominate that at WP:ITN/C. Generally, elections are only added when there is a final result. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be really nice to have a link to "Yesterday's main page" for those of us who like to review the material we saw at lunch time and which has disappeared forever at dinner time. The lack of an easily found (who knows maybe there is a link but damned if I can find it!) link to a full page one day archive of the main page is the most consistently irritating things about Wikipedia. Thanks.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just see Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Julian. Now wouldn't it be an improvement if someone put that link on the main page so more of us can find it? I'd bet I'm not the only idiot here who didn't know the page existed.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, actually. I've set up a test at User:Juliancolton/MP. What do you (and everybody else) think? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer it in the Main Page toolbox, although I realize that would be a more difficult place to find it in. howcheng {chat} 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Main Page toolbox" is near the top of this talkpage. Just go to #Main Page Error Reports above. It's on the right side. Click on "Yesterday" to get "Yesterday's main page". --PFHLai (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday is not stable. This is particularly noticeable for ITN and DYK, which are not updated on a 24-hour basis, but is also true for SA/OTD, which tends to be modified slightly from year to year. There is no way I'm aware of to get a true snapshot of the Main Page at a particular time without going through the history of each template to see what it looked like at that timestamp, and even then you wouldn't see it as a whole Main Page. The software feature of seeing an old revision with all of the transcluded templates also set to that datestamp would probably have to be a task for the devs. - BanyanTree 04:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

For those of us who are unfamiliar with Talk:Main Page the link should be on the Main Page if at all possible. For every editor familiar with Main Page editing and Talk:Main Page I'd suspect there are a hundred editors and ten thousand users who are not. I like Julian's idea better.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the DYKs displayed are not yesterday's. Ditto for most of the ITNs. --74.14.16.148 (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the ITNs? I wouldn't go that far... there are days when there are no new ITNs at all... --candle•wicke 12:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

2 things; what is an ITN or DYK, and I like the test of User:Juliancolton/MP It works.24.110.2.116 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN = In the news. Top right of the Main Page. DYK = Did you know... located below Today's featured article on the Main Page. --candle•wicke 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that (at this moment) "Today's featured picture" is actually a video file, should this be renamed to "Today's featured media"? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Moving picture 198.189.249.13 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read archived discussions on this issue such as Talk:Main Page/Archive 124#Renaming featured picture to featured media. Some of the arguments you'll see there, and those who might chime in later during this thread, include (1) the suggestion to change Wikipedia:Featured pictures to something else since they also promote video files; (2) someone, like the previous comment, will somehow work in the terms "moving picture" or "motion picture" to argue that no change is needed; (3) the suggestion that a user or a bot should repeatedly check the WP:POTD queue and manually change the "Today's featured picture" on the main page at 00:00 (UTC) and then change it back 24 hours later; and (4) like most stuff on the Main Page (such as this issue and that issue), there will be some talk but ultimately no-consensus and historical inertia will prevail. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers? Stifling tradition, more-like... ~user:orngjce223 ☺ how am I typing? 16:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would support renaming to 'Today's featured media'. However, that would require the process currently referred to as 'featured pictures' to be changed to 'featured media' first, since we're just displaying one per day of their list. Try suggesting at WT:FP. Modest Genius ^talk 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the mandatory linguist comment: "picture" is singular, "media" is plural. Also, text is a medium, and so a featured article could be argued to be an example of featured media. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What about "Featured medium except for text"? :P 79.71.67.202 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We've had featured pictures of text (manuscripts) before, though, like this one. Not that I don't take your general point. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking that, but surely that is featured based on its merit as a picture? There are a lot of great texts out there, but they won't be featured if their depictions are crude; text can't really be featured in its own right. 79.71.67.202 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. We have Wikisource for text- those images are featured as images. J Milburn (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Featured visual aids"? --PFHLai (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not keeping it as a picture(s)? After all, video is composed of moving pictures :-) (of course, that excludes sound...) --Tone 07:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture-sound? Featured picsound... featured picund... featured pind. Or sound-picture... but cut that down far enough and you're left with featured sore... a right pain... --candle•wicke 12:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured pound! Then nobody can complain of US bias! :D  GARDEN  12:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the rest of the world uses kilograms or stones, so I think we can ;) Coffeeshivers (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As good still picture and video content grows on the site, and to encourage still more such free content, maybe there will be space for both a daily featured picture and a daily featured video.Dooley (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! So we can't have a picture of a sick baby on the main page but we CAN have insect rape on there? I've just eaten, I was almost sick, blah blah blah! I demand that it be taken down for the greater good incase children stray onto wikipedia, pick up on this picture and go out on a rape-spree! A blurred diagram of a cross-section would be MUCH more appropriate! --LookingYourBest (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so everyone know what you are talking about, the above is posted in reference to Traumatic insemination appearing in the DYK secion with this pic. Raul654 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"incase children stray onto wikipedia, pick up on this picture and go out on a rape-spree! " Uhhh. Seriously... There is no way that that would happen, not even the slightest chance. If the picture did not have a caption, you don't think you would have said anything, because you wouldn't have been able to tell what it was. If any child "goes out on a rape-spree" after seeing that, they have bigger problems than just really weird pattern-association techniques. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Jdelanoy, I think LookingYourBest's comment was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Raul654 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

...And I epic fail for the third time today. And it's not even 11am. Sigh.. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you off Delanoy! Although this was rather tongue-in-cheek, I'm still upset about the whole meningitis debacle!

Oh, and Raul ... best caption EVER! Ha ha! --LookingYourBest (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

HA! thsi is quite possibly the best non april fools DYK i have ever seen!

I'm trying to get it up to FA status for next year's April Fools :) Raul654 (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

...or maybe Valentine's Day? :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yo this pic sux! dont use it! 24.110.2.116 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "pierces and injects" would be a more apt description, to be honest... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for getting rid of the pic! 24.110.2.116 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No problemo! Actually, I believe that DYK updates every 6 hours or so, so it's possible this thread here didn't affect the image at all ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one that notices a higher than average amount of Oregon themed links in the DYK section? Just curious. 98.246.121.170 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.121.170 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody evidently likes Oregon. Or is from there. Or both. --candle•wicke 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to DYKsters from Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon such as User: Aboutmovies and User: Orygun. Good job, guys!

If you want your favourite state/country to appear on DYK more often, keep typing! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I do. :) --candle•wicke 16:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it inspired/serendipitous or ill-advised/unfortunate that both TFA and TFP are paintings of sailors in distress? jnestorius^(talk) 15:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

probably pure coincidence.  GARDEN  15:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pure coincidence, definitely. howcheng {chat} 15:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that ITN is also on the same theme. And when I first saw the new page, the first DYK was about a rescue helicopter. 173.49.91.134 (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, and when I first saw the main page, the lead article on DYK (along with the image- another painting) were about an admiral. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Under the "Recently featured" section, clicking on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz results in an image of the Wawona Tree? APK is ready for the tourists to leave 00:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Was reported in WP:ERRORS above and is now fixed. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 02:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The more I look into it, the more I think the species originally identified in the image:Sticta ainoae.jpg pic is incorrect – it doesn't jive with the general description of the genus in the article (which is derived from material from a reputable source). However, the other image now in the article shown here

matches the genus description, and is of similar quality. Could someone kindly make this change (image and species name)? Sasata (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

... just to clarify, the new hook would then read: "... that some species in the lichen genus Sticta (Sticta hypochra, pictured) can be used to assess the age of forests?" Sasata (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we'll use the other pic. This hook isn't on the mainpage yet, BTW, it will appear in the next update. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

When I access the Main Page, if I have new messages, the links to the bar don't work and the words are oddly formatted: they're not oriented as they should. The "You have new messages" bar works on every other page. I used ((helpme)) (see User talk:MathCool10/Archive 6#"You have new messages" bar) and the ((helpme)) replier said that it was because of the forced placement of the "Welcome to Wikipedia" thing. Is this possible to be fixed? If so, can someone do so? MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

^^ I want to see the Main page of 21st June 2006? --59.182.84.185 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no overall main page archive. Did you know, today's featured picture and today's featured article each have their own archives. For on this day, you will have to go to 21 June and check the revision history, and for in the news, you would have to, again, check the revision history. There's no way to actually view the whole of the main page at once, unless you were to recreate it piece by piece in the userspace. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Kinda sad! Main pages should be preserved man! Its a treasure... I ve seen Wikipedians proudling stating they had their article on Main page or DYKs... We all know its the most visited page...why not archive them? Disappointing :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.84.185 (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2009, Wikipedia:Recent additions (DYK), Wikipedia:Picture of the day/April 2009 and Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April are the spefic archives. For ITN, as far as I'm aware, you'll have to look at the page history. I think there's also an archive of April Fool's Day main pages somewhere, as that's a day where everyone makes a little extra effort! J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The April Fools versions are at WT:AFMP, see the links under 2009 in the inforbox Modest Genius ^talk 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN in 2008 may be found here. I update ITN in 2009 by month (including diffs) so it currently exists as far as 31 March. --candle•wicke 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Phillips_(captain) i think we shoud add link —Preceding unsigned comment added by OspreyPL (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would think not. He does not seem to be notable. --candle•wicke 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

However, he is reasonably relevant to the news item in question. More to the point, the various articles related to the Maersk Alabama kidnapping are in a state of flux, so it's reasonable to link all of them rather than miss something. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a redirect when I wrote that. It probably still ought to be... --candle•wicke 03:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly. If there was no article then, we shouldn't have linked it. As it stands, though, I think it's reasonable to link the captain if there's an article on him. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Last year, East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) used a bot to increase the number of revisions to over 5,000 (using dummy edits) so that the Main Page can no longer be deleted by normal administrators (this was before a "hack" was put in to prevent the deletion of the Main Page). However, I looked at the revision histories (and the deleted revisions) and could find no sign of such edits. Were they removed by Oversight or something? --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tim Starling removed them from the database with a script, per this message. Graham87 05:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks! --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As it is the twentieth anniversary of this event, shouldn’t it be acknowledged? --Patthedog (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Added. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Patthedog (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ack, I somehow missed there has been a maintenance tag in there for over a year, which disqualifies the article from appearing in OTD. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't think they were valid so I've taken them off.  GARDEN  21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it's back anyway.  GARDEN  21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)